331
edits
Talk:Nathania: Difference between revisions
→Speedy deletion tag removed: new section
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
(→Speedy deletion tag removed: new section) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::::Yeah, we need to get {{w|Don LaFontaine}}'s successor, whoever that might be, to narrate this high-stakes scenario for our viewers, as it's getting pretty serious. "In a wiki where vandals have run wild..." [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | :::::Yeah, we need to get {{w|Don LaFontaine}}'s successor, whoever that might be, to narrate this high-stakes scenario for our viewers, as it's getting pretty serious. "In a wiki where vandals have run wild..." [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
::(edit conflict with above) This is likely definitive: cd.textfiles.com/softkeyep/PROGRAMS/DOSGAMES/.../NATION.DOC (find the actual file through the googlelink I gave, but with "1988"). The earliest copyright date is January 1, 1988. That's version 0, which may never have been released. If it was, he just could have blown his copyright by claiming a 1988 year instead of 1987, under the old law, anyway. I read that date as meaning he was working on the game, and put a copyright date into it of January 1, coming up, because he knew he would not release until then or later. There is no sign that anyone but maybe him knew about the game in 1987. There are 1,640 results supporting 1988, this one very explicit, compared to one supporting 1987, this one created by the open proxy vandal. Whaddaya think, we should AGF? "1988, but according to [[Special:Contributions/77.109.141.138]], an open proxy, before before the BON turned into a clear vandal, it's 1987." Whaddaya think, this is excessive detail? Ah, but it's Truth! If it's Truth, it MUST be included, that's article one in the [[Inclusionist Manifesto]], right? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 13:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | ::(edit conflict with above) This is likely definitive: cd.textfiles.com/softkeyep/PROGRAMS/DOSGAMES/.../NATION.DOC (find the actual file through the googlelink I gave, but with "1988"). The earliest copyright date is January 1, 1988. That's version 0, which may never have been released. If it was, he just could have blown his copyright by claiming a 1988 year instead of 1987, under the old law, anyway. I read that date as meaning he was working on the game, and put a copyright date into it of January 1, coming up, because he knew he would not release until then or later. There is no sign that anyone but maybe him knew about the game in 1987. There are 1,640 results supporting 1988, this one very explicit, compared to one supporting 1987, this one created by the open proxy vandal. Whaddaya think, we should AGF? "1988, but according to [[Special:Contributions/77.109.141.138]], an open proxy, before before the BON turned into a clear vandal, it's 1987." Whaddaya think, this is excessive detail? Ah, but it's Truth! If it's Truth, it MUST be included, that's article one in the [[Inclusionist Manifesto]], right? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 13:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
== Speedy deletion tag removed == | |||
I removed the speedy deletion tag, because Nathania has been a notable wiki, as Googling "Nathania.org" will show. The issue of hosting controversial wikis, blikis, and "vanity wikis" is one that should be carefully considered by the community. Excluding these would be a radical departure from prior practice. There are legitimate issues to be considered. In this case, the owner of a wiki has requested deletion, which is also something to be carefully considered. This listing caused enormous disruption, as WikiIndex users, including administrators, defended it against outside attack. Now, in a fit of pique, the owner requests deletion. On Wikiversity, such a request was made by a former administrator, about his content. In spite of a strong tradition of honoring author requests, the request for deletion was rejected. Only if there is no objection are such requests routinely granted. There could be other bases for deleting the page, but they have not been asserted. | |||
To Nathan, this comment: you do not get to create enormous disruption, directly and indirectly, and mostly provocatively, then casually obtain deletion and thus a covering up of what happened. If you actually want to move on, say so. If you wish to repudiate the ideas you promoted -- or appeared to promote -- say so. Request support. But continuing in isolation, just making whatever fuss appears to you as important on a day, putting up wikis, taking them down, putting them up again, taking them down again, all based on short-term reactions, and arguing ad nauseum, no. You have wasted a great deal of wiki user time. Stop it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||